Jump to content

User talk:ARynan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, ARynan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, ARynan. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Credence (Graphic Novel) (May 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Broccoli and Coffee was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please adhere to WP:NPOV. Please also remove the external links in the body. Links to Amazon are a big red flag. If you have a conflict of interest and are being paid to write this page, you must disclose so.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 07:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, ARynan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 07:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broc, would you be willing to look at the updated draft and offer your thoughts? It's not done yet; I'll be working on it for re-submission over the next few days, but I want to be absolutely scrupulous about the standards before doing so. Appreciate any feedback and advice you can give me, and I appreciate your help thus far. :) @Broccoli and Coffee: 00:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)ARD (talk)[reply]

The draft is certainly in a lot better shape than it was a few days ago. I think the main thing to focus on now is finding more sources. The next challenge is establishing its notability – in other words, proving that it is a notable enough book to warrant its own Wikipedia page. If you can find more reliable sources, add them. Right now, citations only appear in the reviews section, which is not enough. Find some reputable news sources that discuss the book that you can use to backup other areas of the draft. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 02:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Easton has a Wikipedia page, and his books, including this one, are mentioned in the body of the article. Would that help establish some notability? I'm also tracking down attribution for the LA Weekly quote I removed. @Broccoli and Coffee: ARD (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some news sources who discuss the book for backup; I'm just not sure how I should integrate them into the draft. Do I need to reference them or use a quote from each story in the narrative? @Broccoli and Coffee: ARD (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: sources - I think I've managed to successfully and correctly add the supplemental news sources; did I do it right? Also, are links for YouTube appropriate for the External Links section? There are some videos for the novel on the Blackwatch channel. I also have cover art to add, but am not sure exactly how to add it. @Broccoli and Coffee: ARD (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

[edit]

Hello ARynan,

We discussed the mandatory Paid editing disclosure at the Teahouse, and I thought you understood me. But I see that you continued editing without making the disclosure. Consider this a formal warning: If you continue to edit without making the disclosure, you will be blocked. This is not negotiable. Do it with your next edit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - it was not intentional, truly, and it won't happen again. I've completed and updated on my User page; did I do it right? I don't want to do any more edits before checking with you and making sure. ARynan (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but you should also mention the articles or drafts in question. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the article in question in the disclosure. Trying to figure out how to add it in the article talk page...ARynan (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Found the Article Talk page and added disclosure. ARynan (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Credence (Graphic Novel)

[edit]

I have made some formatting and cleanup edits to this page, and ahve some comments and advice.

  • Please provide complete bibliographic info on any cited source, including the name of the publication, the date of publication, a link if the source is online, an access date if the source is online, and the author if known.
  • All quotes must have an inline citation to a source supporting the quote, and must be attributed in prose to the person (or orginaztion) being quoted. It is good practice to attribute the publication in which the quote appeared in prose as well. For example: Writing in The New York Times Joan Critic said of VitaBook "It brought tears to my eyes, tears of laughter."<citation here/>
  • Opinions must be attributed to a named person or organization, and must be supported by an inline citation.
  • Please use only straight quotes, not angled or curly ones.
  • Do not use adjectives such as "acclaimed" or "celebrated". Instead descibe the facts, or link to a wikipedia article on the subject if ther is one.
  • Be careful that wiki-links go to an article about the subject you wnat to link to, not to another subject with the same name.
  • Do not place external links in the body of the draft. They should only go in citations, or in the external links section.
  • Do not link to Amazon or other commercial vendors. See WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER.
  • section headers should be in sentence case, not title case, and should be marked off ==Like this==.
  • all cited sources must be reliabel. Blogs and other one-person operations are not usually considered reliable, unless operated by a noted expert in the field. Fansites and fora are pretty much never reliable.

I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel Yes, these are extremely helpful! Thank you for taking the time to do this! Would it be okay to come back to you with questions when I'm re-writing and editing? I want to be absolutely scrupulous with the format, tone and requirements. ARD (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel RE: your note "Be careful that wiki-links go to an article about the subject you wnat to link to, not to another subject with the same name" -- the actor Michael Easton who I linked to the Wiki entry in my original draft is also the author Michael Easton. They are indeed the same person. ARD (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, you may ask questions of me at any time by posting on User talk:DESiegel (I will get an automatic notice and email) or by posting on any talk page, including this one, and including any article or draft talk page, and including {{ping|DESiegel}} or {{U|DESiegel}} as part of a signed comment. I will get an automatic notification. Note that unless the comment is signed the notification does not occur. Signing it later doesn't work. See WP:ECHO. Including "@DESiegel" does not generate a notification unless {{ping}}, or some other code with a simialr effect is used, such as {{u}}, {{reply to}} etc. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for incorrectly assuming that the actor was not also the author. It is very common for new editors to misdirect a link. I will restore it. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So much to learn... Oy. Lemme try a ping here and see if it works. @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. I've been editing for 12 years and am still learning things. Oy Vey!
Your ping worked just fine.
I do not promise to respond to questions within a particular time frame. I edit fairly often, but non-Wikipedia stuff may need to come first, as I am not paid for this. You can always ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk for faster response. However, some regualr responders at both venues are rather hostile towards paid editors, and may not be as helpful as they might. Do read WP:BOGO for the thought patterns that some have. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been told the same by some others here. The thing that confuses me is that I'm not actually being PAID for this particular author, but some admins said I had to put a disclosure on there anyway -- I guess because I might benefit in some way from the work? Or maybe because I'm a publicist and may eventually be submitting other entries for paying clients? I'm afraid I don't quite understand it, but I don't want to be difficult, so I put the disclaimer on the page. I appreciate your help and insight. @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once it was known that you were engaging in paid editing, some will not trust any declaration that particualr edits are not paid. I will go into this at greateer lenght another time, if i can. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Des. If you have a few minutes over the weekend, could you help me with these questions?

-I have some additional links and source material; should I put them in 'external links' rather than 'references' if I don't directly reference them in the body of the entry, or does it matter?

-If I'm reading your notes correctly, I should also in the References section give the bibliographic information in each reference I include, ie the name of the publication, the date of publication, bibliographic info on any cited source, including the name of the publication, the date of publication, a link if the source is online, author, etc, along with the link, yes?

-With regard to your note about inline quotes: Do you mean literally straight quotation marks. like (")?

-I was going to go back and remove the "about the author" narrative, and later use it to update Easton's main Wikpedia bio, but I see you already did that; thank you.

- In External Links: Are Easton and Perkins' official sites not valid for inclusion here?

Thanks again for any counsel you can give me. I'm going to take a break and let this simmer in my head for a day or so before tackling another go and re-submission. :P @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Links and sources which you plan to use as citaionsa later could be put on the talk page. The extermal links section should not get overly long, but it can be added to. It should include only links to useful, non-commercial sites that are in some way about the book.
  • The bibliographic information should be part of each citation. If you are using footnotes generated with <ref>...</ref> tags, they should go inside the tags. Yhat will display the info in the references section, but it is edited where the citation occurs in the text. Citation templates (such as {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}) are a very good way to do this, but other citation methods may be used, as long as the info is clearly associated with the citation.
  • Yes I mean straight (typewriter) quotes, not angled or curled or otherwise formatted quote marks.
  • Another editor removed the About the author section, look at the history tab.
  • The links to the official sies of the author and illustrator woiuld clearly be good in an article about those indviduals. If the authro maintains a site about the book that may be linked to. The auhtor's site is a gray area in an article about the book.
More to come later. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DES, would you have time to have another look and see if you think I'm ready to resubmit this? I'm chewing my nails... @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, ARynan. Several points:
  • Near the end of the "Summary" section, the draft now says; the story is told in a coarse, even stark cinematic style, following Credence into the rubble-strewn landscape of a corrupted life. Struggling to maintain some small hope of salvage, Credence navigates a minefield of triggers that constantly pull him between the angel and the demon sitting on his shoulders... This sounds very much like opinion or critical analysis. Who says that that the style is stark and cinematic? Who says that the character of Credence is "pulled between the angel and the demon"? If a reviewer has said this, then name the reviewer and cite the review. if the publisher's blurb said this, then say "according to the publisher" and cite that. If it is your idea, it probably shouldn't be there. A plot summary need not be cited, as long as it is a purely factual description of the events of the book (or play or movie or TV show). But any analysis, any conclusions, must be attributed to a reliable source, and cited.
  • The draft now reads, Credence was notably different from Easton's previous Soul Stealer trilogy Again, who says so? This is analysis, and must be cited to a source.
  • If the book has an ISBN, it should be listed. The template {{ISBN}} can be used.
  • Sources:
  • I am a bit uneasy about Ain't it Cool News. Is this really a reliable source, or is it more like a blog? Does it have a staff, or is it a one-person operation? In any case, once source does not suffice to establish notability. Are there other independent, reliable sources that have also reviewed this book?
  • The Newsarama source doesn't ever mention Credence, it is all about the author's earlier work. It would be appropriate in an article about the author, or a combined article about all of his fiction, but doen't really do much for this article.
  • The Soap Opera Spy source confirms the book's existence and that some attention has been paid to it, but not much more.
  • The same can be said of the Heavy.com source, it is really little more than a passing mention.
  • The Intelligent Designs source has a good in-depth review, but again I am doubtful about the source. This looks very much like a one-person operation, which will mean it would not be counted as reliable, unless that person has a reputation as an expert in the field.
  • The Michael Fairman TV source doesn't have any detailed coverage of the book, seeming to treat it as a sideline to the author's acting career, and also might not be accepted as reliable. Again, it looks like a one-person operation, although this time by someone with some credibility as a journalist, so it might pass. But it doesn't have enough in-depth coverage in any case.
In short, I think this needs more and better sources, and needs any analysis to be attributed and cited. I hope this is helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would defend Ain't it Cool News as a recognized entertainment, comics, and film source, with a staff of writers and contributors; they profile, review, and cover niche as well as high-profile items and are well-known for it.

I must have added the ISBN right after you went to have a look at it -- but it's there now.

I'll remove Newsarama; perhaps that link should be added to Easton's main Wiki page.

Intelligent Designs I defend on the same premise as AICN; this author is known and credible and covers a wide range of books and films -- but he may be superfluous here.

As a television site, I would offer that as such, Fairman would tend to position anything other than television work as a sideline, even if it isn't necessarily so. He is also a vetted and respected source as an entertainment journalist.

Your other notes are extremely helpful; I'll take a closer look at the citations and narratives you pointed out. If I can't justify them, I'll remove them. Would it be valid and acceptable to quote the book synopsis directly from the official website, if I put it in quotations and cite that source directly? @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will accept your evaluation of Ain't it Cool News and Intelligent Designs, this is an area where I don't know the players well. And given that, things are in somewhat better shape than i had thought. In the case of Fairman, he may have a natural bias, which is fine, but since he doesn't say much about the book, he doesn't help much to establish its notability. Some yes, i would say leave him in, but there isn't enough here yet, in the way of commentary about the book. Nor is there any independent source for its popular success, either in terms of sales or of fanbase. Those alone are never enough, but they can help. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me simmer on this and see if I can find some additional supporting materials relating to popular success/notability. Obviously his previous novel, Soul Stealer, was deemed notable enough for its own Wiki page; is there any way of finding out what criteria validated that? Maybe I could learn from that. @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Credence was notably different from Easton's previous Soul Stealer trilogy Again, who says so? This is analysis, and must be cited to a source. --

Well, lemme give this a shot...what if the two styles are obviously and notably different, ie, The art styles alone are completely different, for example, as well as Soul Stealer is in color and Credence is B/W. I would posit that these are clear and notable differences that empirically set the two apart and would need no additional supporting proof.

Does that work? or is it a fairly good try? ;) @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color fvs black&white is a fact, but 'calm' vs 'edgy' is an opnion, even if almsot everyone agrees, we would need a source that explicitly says that there is this difference. And even that color vs B&W is significant is an opinion. Many Wikipedia articles get a bit free with analysis of fiction, but newer ones not so much, and you need to write defensively on this one, or nits will be picked and turned into gaping wounds, at least they might be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they're also stylistically obviously different from one another, not just relating to color vs. B/W. Dang, this is challenging...LOL @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eighteen Straight Whiskeys (Poetry)

[edit]

Could you have a look at this one, too? Any suggestions are much appreciated. Thanks for all your help, DES. @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has some of the same issues as the Credence draft.
  • First of all, if this is going forward, please provide complete and accurate citation bibliographic data. For example, the current #4 cite: The source isn't Google.com it is The free lance-Star. The title should be the article title ("Easton Finds Satisfaction...", which you will need to retype since the image can't be copied from. Always give a publication or web site's name, never its domain or url in the |website= or (better) |work= parameters.
  • Remember that interviews and self-published sources can be used to support facts, but do little or nothing to establish notability, usually nothing.
  • Remember that brief passing mentions in a source mostly about other topics also don't help with notability. The free lance-Star source has something of this problem, and others cited here have more of it.
  • There is only one substantive critical comment here, and that is none too long. Just not enough yet to establish the notability of this collection.
I am sorry not to be more encouraging DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate you being so exacting; I'll learn faster this way. Hopefully, anyway.

I must have messed up the way I did citations; last time, on the Credence draft, I manually wrote the code in; this time I tried using the "cite" function. Easier and quicker, but probably not as accurate. I'll go back and do them over again. ARD (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the cite function is quicker, and it gives a good start, but it is notoriously unable to reliably find publication names, settling for URLs instead, and often shoehorns the publisher into the title. Not yet good enough in my view, although better than it was two years ago. (And it cant do PDFs at all.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I have a feeling this one isn't going to be notable enough; poetry collections usually aren't,unless it's a really famous person writing them or it won something like a Pulitzer. I might be better off incorporating information about this book into Easton's main Wiki page and including the book link to the official author site in his citations or external links; what do you think? @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, unless theer has been quite a bit more written about it. Including nit in the main bio article could work, or there could be a single article about his writing, covering both this and Credance, and his other works as well, perhaps. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like a second bio article for just his work as a writer? Is that allowed? @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be. If there is too much content about his writing to fit comfortable in the main bio article about him, but not enough for separate articles about each book, such a separate article is sometiems done. Or in some case a multi-genre author has an article about his work in one genre, and another about work in a different genre. Or there can be an article about a series, with or without separate article on individual books. It all depends on how much content there is, and the judgment of the editors. I once merged a bunch of little stubs into Aubrey–Maturin series, although other editors later added more content and split separate articles out again. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused as to how Soul Stealer got its own article page with less citations and information than I have for Credence. Maybe I'm just overthinking it and should use that as a template? @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the answer is, nobody seriously questioned it. if it were nominated for deletion as it stands, it might well be deleted. This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered a poor argument in many cases. The frequent response to "This is better than that, and no one questions that" is "Thanks, I'll go nominate that for deletion also". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't using it as an argument; I think Soul Stealer definitely merits a page. I was genuinely thinking maybe there was something the writer did in that one and I could learn from that article, that's all.

But now I'm wondering if maybe it might be worth offering a Writer bio page for submission-- he's also written screenplays and adaptations as well as novels -- or editing his current main bio page with the Credence and Whiskeys book information. @DESiegel: ARD (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those is a possible way to proceed. Perhaps the simplest is to add the info to his existing bio page, and then consider whether there is enough to split it out into a separate page about him as a writer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Czar! I had actually had it on the Author page for quite some time, then created the standalone page. I don't know exactly what I did wrong, but somehow instead of submitting it for review, it posted in the main article space.
I would rather the book have its own page, to be honest, than keep it as a blurb on Michael's bio page. If it needs more source material for reference, I will find it and submit another draft for review. But I do feel that it has ample references to shore up the validity of the standalone article. Is there any way I can work with you on this to possibly reinstate the page? @Czar: ARD (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As I mentioned, I recommend writing about the book within the author's article and only split out summary style when warranted by an overabundance of reliable source material. That would be publications with editorial policy, pedigree, reputation, not blogs or gossip sites. That would be reviews about the book and its publication, not solely interviews with the author or marketing materials. Option (2) is for me to restore it to draftspace so you can submit it for AfC review as you might have intended? I will guarantee, however, that it will not pass that review with those sources. Option (3) would be to take it to WP:Articles for deletion as mentioned in the other thread where I was pinged. Again, I can say with high confidence that unless additional sources are unearthed, it's going to end up as a redirect to the author's article. To warrant a separate article, the subject (i.e., the book) needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. This is why I recommend improving the author's article and its core content before focusing on splitting to additional pages. (?) czar 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what you recommend is for now expanding the information on the author's bio page until I can find better source material, is that correct? Please don't misunderstand me; I truly appreciate your assistance and am not trying to be difficult. My intention is to abide by the rules and do this the right way, so if that means tucking the summary and book information on the author page until I can provide and cite sources which are acceptable, then that's what I'll do. :) Thank you for being patient with me. @Czar: ARD (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, that's right. But the only sources I recommend importing from your draft are TV Insider and Soap Opera Digest. Hollywood Reporter might be okay if you can confirm that the article actually ran in 1997, but you wouldn't want to link directly to Easton's site because that's a copyright violation of the publication's content. You'd either want to link to an official site or remove the URL from the citation. The other sites in the draft do not exhibit hallmarks of a reliable source. Happy editing! czar 22:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter did run that article in 1997, but I'll hold that reference in abeyance until I have another go at a standalone page. Question: can I use the cover art for 18 Straight Whiskeys on the author page? It was orphaned when the standalone page was removed, and I was wondering if it was all right to upload on the bio page. @Czar: ARD (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would you not consider the USA Today, Soap Opera Digest, or Michael Fairman TV to be reliable sources? And thank you for linking to the draft. I appreciate that. @Czar: ARD (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: cover art, nope, because all non-free images need to pass the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Per #8, we don't add fair use (non-free) images unless there is some contextual significance in which the concept cannot be readily understood without a visual depiction. Here it would be decoration.
Haven't gone to deep into the sources, but my understanding is that at least Soap Opera Digest has existed in print for a while, though I can't speak to its quality or editorial process. Wasn't the USA Today article self-published? And no, wouldn't use Michael Fairman. You're looking for sources with editorial policy, pedigree, reputation per the criteria in WP:Identifying reliable sources. czar 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today piece was not self-published. It was part of the publication's Pop Candy series with Whitney Matheson. Soap Opera Digest is an American Media publication based in New York City and has been in print for 45 years. I would defend that both have proven their editorial reliability, policy, pedigree and standards, and earned the respect and deference of both. Michael Fairman has been an entertainment journalist for over 20 years covering both daytime and primetime series, and is an associate producer of the Daytime Emmy Awards. @Czar: ARD (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today piece has "By Michael Easton" in its byline... It's a guest piece written by the book's author. I never opposed the Soap Opera Digest source. Michael Fairman (not Michael Fairman) might be cited as a self-published source perhaps, but his self-published blog is not in itself an indication of the book's notability. The blog article itself just repeats a tweet and adds no additional journalistic value, making it a trivial contribution to the book's notability. re: your comment on the other talk page, I thought we were on the same page on covering this within the author's article—are we not? I offered other options, but I'm saying in advance that it's process for its own sake, especially as I've now walked through the individual sourcing issues. czar 01:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A guest piece by a book author for a national newspaper is not "self-published". It is, as I said, part of a series that newspaper ran under the curation and editorship of Whitney Matheson (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/07/guest-blogger-by-day-i-star-on-a-soap-opera-but-after-work-i-write-comics-/1#.Xq23WSlKjIU). The reference quote I used from that guest article is directly relevant to the origin and conception of 18 Straight Whiskeys, as it addresses Michael's early beginnings as a writer and the motivation that drove him to continue, ie, his mother's influence.

The Fairman piece makes note of the fact that the book's anniversary edition did indeed overload the publisher site with orders within the first 24 hours, which speaks to the book's demand and popularity. I can and will get direct confirmation of this from the publishers themselves and insert that into the Wikipedia article, but Fairman is a recognized and credible source of daytime/soap entertainment on Wikipedia and has been used in other article references, so I saw no reason not to include him (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_soap_opera_media_outlets).

I am indeed revising the author's main page to incorporate 18 Straight Whiskeys into the body narrative, which will serve for the time being. However, my intention and goal is to build a standalone page for the book. It is an integral and influential part of the author's body of work that I believe warrants its own Wiki page, and I recognize that vetting is part of the process. If that requires revision, additional sourcing, or defense of the existing sources I've used, then I will do what I need to do in order to accomplish that goal. @Czar: ARD (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. re: using sources for specific purposes, all types of sources can be justified within an article, but when using sources as proof of a topic's unique notability (i.e., for its own, separate article, which is what I was doing), the sources need to be sufficiently independent and significant to show that enough has been written in vetted sources to justify a full encyclopedia article. If someone has a specific issue with your sourcing in the author article, you can discuss on the talk page there, but as for whether the book has the sourcing to justify its own article, the arguments I just gave will be the ones that are repeated in a discussion forum like AfD. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia based on what overabundance of independent, reliable sourcing has been written directly about the subject, not to specifically afford dedicated articles to any theoretical topic or based on how passionately an editor believes in a topic. re: writing about oneself, I am referring specifically to the policy on self-publishing about oneself, which includes writing about oneself on any blog, guest or not. I think I've given this dialogue all I can offer and have walked through how each scenario goes so the next steps are up to you. Best wishes with your editing. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, ARynan. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi ARynan! You created a thread called Use of images at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi ARynan! You created a thread called Editing process question at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by User:Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation: The Green Woman has been accepted

[edit]
The Green Woman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Green Woman) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating The Green Woman.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process.

Thanks for developing the new article on "The Green Woman" graphic novel.

To reply, leave a comment here and ping me.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broc, I wanted to add the cover art for The Green Woman on the Wikipedia article, but I'm unsure if I did it correctly. Is there a way to check? The submission guidelines confuse me terribly. @Broccoli and Coffee: ARD (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Easton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Credence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I've removed the disambiguation link. ARD (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Credence (Graphic Novel) has been accepted

[edit]
Credence (Graphic Novel), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alarichall (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Book Cover Images

[edit]

Broc, I'm having trouble with getting the book cover images for Credence and Eighteen Straight Whiskeys approved; I'm not sure why. The images are on WikiCommons, and I have written permission from the copyright holder to use the images for the Wikipedia articles. What should I do? @Broccoli and Coffee: ARD (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

[edit]

Information icon Hi ARynan! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you for that. I appreciate the note and will be more mindful of that going forward. You're very kind to let me know; I'm trying to get better at this Wikipedia thing, and sometimes I goof. :P @MarchJuly: 71.214.69.181 (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi again ARynan. You seem to be marking most of your edits as WP:MINOR. Whether you're consciously doing so or just didn't notice, you should try and only do so as explained in WP:MINOR#Things to remember, particularly since the articles you're editing appear to be one that you have some connection to. You should also probably follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and avoid directly editing such articles a much as possible. I would also suggest that you don't create articles about subjects you have direct connection to in the mainspace like you did with Eighteen Straight Whiskeys, but rather submit them to WP:AFC for review instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I'm sorry for those errors in marking as minor edits; I will be extremely exacting and keep your notes at hand next time. I really appreciate your help. @Marchjuly and Marchjuly: ARD (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eighteen Straight Whiskeys cover.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eighteen Straight Whiskeys cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

[edit]

Hi! I have been asked to come and explain a few things:

Minor edits

As explained previously, you should only mark something as a minor edit when it's a small, non-controversial edit like fixing a grammatical error. The point is that the edit should be something so small and insignificant that no one would possibly have any sort of issue with it. Any time you add content or change something, you should not mark it as a minor edit and the vast majority of edits won't be minor. I would actually recommend that you not mark edits as minor unless it's specifically fixing a grammatical or spelling error, at least until you grow more familiar with the minor edits policy.

Logging in

You should try to always be logged in when editing. Part of the reason for this is because this can help people know that it's you making the edits and for you to keep track of your edits. It'll also prevent it from looking like the IP is a separate person working in tandem with you, which can look bad. This is particularly important to avoid when you have a conflict of interest, as you want to avoid it looking like you're trying to make it seem like you're trying to build consensus for things to be written a certain way.

Staying logged in can also help protect your privacy, as people can determine your location based on your IP address. Editing while logged out robs you of some of your anonymity, which can be very important for some editors.

I don't know how much of the training or welcome tours you've done, but it's always a good idea to take a refresher now and then. You can see some of these at WP:ADVENTURE and WP:TRAINING. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I sincerely appreciate you and everyone who has been so generous with your time and help. You've been really amazing with providing advice and information, and it's really useful. Bear with me; I'll get this down. @ReaderofthePack: ARD (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Hi, DES. I have an image change for Michael's biography page, and would like to upload the photo, but I need some help with it. The photo is a professional headshot, and the photographer signed over copyright to Mr. Easton, who has given me a copy of it. How do I submit it to Wikipedia so I can replace the current image with the headshot? Appreciate any guidance you can give me. ARD (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Michael Easton by P Konerko Studio 1.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Michael Easton by P Konerko Studio 1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: Hi, Salavat! I added the non-free use to the image, but wondered if you might check to make sure I did it correctly and used the right rationale? This is a little confusing for me. Appreciate any help or assistance you can give. Thank you for your note and advice. ARD (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a couple of small fixes and removed the no-fair use tag. However given that Michael Easton is still alive the image's fair use will likely be disputed in the future. The argument will be that given the actor is still alive a free use image equivalent can be found/created. Wikipedia is pretty strict on this policy so don't be surprised when it happens and if you get a chance have a look over Wikipedia:Non-free content to get a better understanding on what is acceptable and what isn't. Salavat (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: Thank you; I'll look at it; this stuff is very confusing to me. It's never been a problem for me to use a standard headshot before, so I'm flailing a little bit here. The actor owns the copyright on the photos, and has given me permission to use them as well. Would it help to submit the written release from the photographer to Easton, as well as the written release from Easton to me? Or would that just complicate things further? ARD (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the actor is willing to release the image then you can submit the written permission via the OTRS system (instructions on Commons). I have never used this before but the instructions should hopefully contain what you need. Once something has been submitted to OTRS then I think you just tag the image with the {{subst:OP}} template and wait for a review. Salavat (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: Well, I sent the releases to Photo Submissions, and Valeria Dominiguez wrote back saying they're insufficient. I honestly don't understand why this is such a complex issue. It's a headshot of an actor, which actors use all the time for publicity purposes. This exact same image is being used on IMDB. I'm pretty flummoxed. ARD (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rules around free images are pretty strict, I think the general idea is just because its used somewhere else on the Internet doesn't mean it is licensed correctly for Wikipedia/Commons. hopefully you can ask some further questions for clarification, there is the OTRS noticeboard that might be helpful for asking questions. This article, Copyright rules by subject matter, might also help. I'm not expert on this area either and have made heaps of mistakes with my uploads so I don't know if I can be of any more useful help. Salavat (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salavat: Well, this Valeria person seems to be incredibly confused, too. She doesn't seem to understand that I'm telling her that Peter signed over all the photo rights to Michael, and Michael has authorized me to use them here on Wikipedia. She and I are going around in circles. I need help from someone who can facilitate this. Do you have any suggestions of someone on here who might be able to help? ARD (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: DESSSS..please help meeee, I'm going crazy.

Orphaned non-free image File:Michael Easton by P Konerko Studio 1.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Easton by P Konerko Studio 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@B0bot: I'm very confused about this. I and the copyright owner both submitted the documentation releasing permission to use this image on Wikipedia. Additionally, this is a headshot for an actor, which is widely used and distributed for purposes of publicity; it falls under the legal definition of Fair Use. That's why actors have headshots taken; they WANT them to be used and distributed. And this one has been used numerous times in print and online, including on the actor's own Facebook and IMDB page. I don't know what else Wikipedia might need to verify. ARD (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Broccoli and Coffee: Broc, are you around anywhere? I desperately need help here and am about to tear my hair out. ARD (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ARynan&oldid=1004250848"